~ Random stories

De Facto Elimination of the Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment states : “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” – My bold.

Well the SCOTUS decided yesterday 5/4 that a previous State decision, namely that “for public use” included rebuilding an area to increase local economic prosperity, should stand. This means that from now on in the USA private homes can be forceably purchased by the States if they believe the land would be better used to provide local employment. Think about that for a minute – if WalMart or any strip-mall now wants to build where your house stands they can ask the State to force you to vacate the property.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

4 thoughts on “De Facto Elimination of the Fifth Amendment”

Um … you realise that this is a confusing-as-hell way of putting it. When you say that this definition should stand, you seem to indicate that the decision is for keeping the Amendment as it is, rather than its complete violation. It could have been phrased better, as it caused a good two minutes of brain-bending confusion.

This is nothing new. The hiway department has followed this process for decades. If a road need built, widened, etc and the strip of land needed is not public property then the land will be bought from the owner for real market value. Not his entire property but what is needed unless the owner wants to sell all the property. I take it you don’t think roads & hiways & interstates are necessary to reach point a to point b? You’ve a magical teleportation machine? The government isn’t just taking away land because they’ve suddenly gotten a wild hair up their collective arses. If there is a public need then the land is bought not stolen & the owner is fairly compensated. Most individuals who protest the purchase are doing so to try & push the purchase price above fair & reasonable amounts. Greed in other words. After all a house is just a house. People buy and sell houses all the time. You sell the house to the government or another individual & go buy a better one somewhere else.

A road is one thing–It’s built by the government for a public purpose. But throwing people out of their homes to give the land to Pfizer is quite another matter–and that’s exactly what happened in Kelo. Takings for public use can be justified, but ONLY for public use. Taking it from poor people and giving it to a corporation isn’t a public use. It’s a gross abuse of power.

This is not about ‘taking’ land from poor people and ‘giving’ it to a corporation. If you read the rest of the Amendment, you still can’t actually take the land without adequate compensation. Therefore, it’s more about buying the land from the poor people and selling it to the corporations for a stupid amount of profit. In an ideal world, this obscene profit would go to improving public services rather than lining the pockets of politicians, but never mind.

The interpretation of ‘public use’ is a little out there, but isn’t entirely unfair either. Managed properly, this could generate further tax revenue that on at least some level will go to public services, which means that it is, in an indirect sense, for public use.